[QUOTE=BeerLover;926817][QUOTE=eadler;924690]... the fact is Dr. Hansen messed up his temperature data big time. He substituted September's temperature data for October. BeerLover[/QUOTE]That is not how the story reads, you inject a lot of your own "facts" here.

(1) Is this "messed up big time" really?

In my reading, all the fuss was made by the denial crowd, who were happy to find a mistake in the regularly published numbers.

(2) Did Hansen (or his people) "substitute good with bad numbers"?

No they didn't. It is a blunder, in which the updates were not taken into account. This really is nothing big, unless you project your own suspicions into it. Which, obviously, may be "big time"...

I never thought Hansen or NASA were a yardstick for the validity of climate science. They work on it, sure, but so do many others. But still, to compare Hansen with the Korean fake scientist is character assassination and not even remotely warranted by the man's proven errors, christzen.

The man may be a bit naïve and a bit sloppy, but he's not as naïve and stupid as to deliberately mislead the public with such an easily spottable error. Or do you believe that, too?

[QUOTE=CharikIeia;927330][QUOTE=BeerLover;926817]
That is not how the story reads, you inject a lot of your own "facts" here.

(1) Is this "messed up big time" really?

In my reading, all the fuss was made by the denial crowd, who were happy to find a mistake in the regularly published numbers.

(2) Did Hansen (or his people) "substitute good with bad numbers"?

No they didn't. It is a blunder, in which the updates were not taken into account. This really is nothing big, unless you project your own suspicions into it. Which, obviously, may be "big time"...

I never thought Hansen or NASA were a yardstick for the validity of climate science. They work on it, sure, but so do many others. But still, to compare Hansen with the Korean fake scientist is character assassination and not even remotely warranted by the man's proven errors, christzen.

The man may be a bit naïve and a bit sloppy, but he's not as naïve and stupid as to deliberately mislead the public with such an easily spottable error. Or do you believe that, too?[/QUOTE]

Personally,I wouldn't put it past him to do it deliberately.He is now more prophet of the religion of AGW than scientist.But deliberate or simply naive and sloppy,his work is suspect.He is considered the voice of AGW,yet you have to defend him with the dubious defense that he is merely naive and sloppy.BUt this isn't the first time he has found to have been in error.He was called out last year by 2 other scientists and was forced then to revise his figures in the face of their proof.He has also been shown to doctor data in his climate model.He doesn't really function as a true scientist anymore.

The flip side of the issue is that research into other causes for GW is being suppressed by the faithful of the AGW religion.Check out Henrik Svensmark's work and ask yourself why journals have often refused to publish his work.His work actually makes more sense,as it explains past climate changes as well.But it is heresy among the faithful for any other theory to receive attention.It is a tenet of the faith that it is manmade;therefore,any scientific research that might show otherwise is blasphemy and must be squelched.The AGW crowd attempts to suppress other scientific inquiries into the cause,and therefore show themselves to no longer be true scientists.

This is not an accurate statement. The fact is that GISS used NOAA's figures without doing any checking. They missed totally that Septembers figures were carried over into October giving a very high reading. According to the Telegraph article, the spokesman for GISS said that they didn't have enough manpower or funding available to do such checking. Now, I wish that some of the mainstream media would have actually reported on this gaff so that this statement could be verified, but as usual, they "overlooked" this little bit of news because it is very embarassing to GISS and its flagship status as proponents of AGW.

What's so alarming about Hansen is that he is constantly messaging the data. If you compare any two of his products across the timeline, you find that past values are constantly changing. Second, the guy does himself no favors by advocating for extremists and testifying that acts of violence and destruction are justified .. this especially being based on his products.

I'm content to ignore his garbage. UAH and RSS have far superior products for the last 30 years. As far as I'm concerned, they should just stop all of GISS's nonsense and truncate the data at 1979, .. and send Hansen packing. [I'm sure Greenpeace or someone would be more than happy to bring him on board!].

By 2015, this issue will be settled. If the trend continues, there will be no more Global Warming to speak of, and this will be in the face of significant increases in CO2. While the waving of hands will continue, it will be indisputable that the natural forcings are far more powerful than CO2, and that any affect it has is purely conditional [as in ... if the PDO is positive, and Solar is High, then CO2 may show some affect that at this point cannot be quantified].

Like I said on the poltics board ... the leftists are scrambling to get their legislation passed before the window closes on them .... and it is closing rather rapidly.

[QUOTE=CharikIeia;927330][QUOTE=BeerLover;926817]
That is not how the story reads, you inject a lot of your own "facts" here.

(1) Is this "messed up big time" really?

In my reading, all the fuss was made by the denial crowd, who were happy to find a mistake in the regularly published numbers.

(2) Did Hansen (or his people) "substitute good with bad numbers"?

No they didn't. It is a blunder, in which the updates were not taken into account. This really is nothing big, unless you project your own suspicions into it. Which, obviously, may be "big time"...

[/QUOTE]

Editorializing perhaps, Charikleia, misspelling "diabolical, yes:o Injecting facts, no. I think we can agree that September's temperature numbers were originally reported as October's. In my opinion this is a serious error. Once when I was working for a contract chemical manufacturing company, I reported a wrong number. I about killed myself to purify 40 mg of a particular compound. This number was reported to the client. They were delighted because they needed 10 mg for further analysis and 20 mg for efficacy testing. As it turns out, the tare on my flask was wrong. Instead of 40 mg, I only had 18, not enough for testing. This little blunder got me in lots of trouble and hurt my company's credibility with the client. Was Hansens's mistake a big blunder or a "little oopsie?" That's a matter of opinion. I can tell you from personal experience, mis-reporting even a single number can have serious consequenses.

Was the mistake intentional? It is difficult to know for sure without a smoking gun of some sort. As Bodean pointed out, this guy has a bad habit of massaging the numbers. (OK, I editorialize again.) I beleve it was Hansen who claimed the 1990's were the hottest decade of the 20th century. Some other scientists found an error in his calculations which made the 1930's hotter. I'm sure Bodean could list a number of other examples.

The question is, are these "errors" the result of sloppy work, or purposely biased to fit a political agenda? It really doesn't matter to me although it always raises a red flag when somebody makes an error in their favor. Regardless of the cause, Dr. Hansen has reported bad data on several occasions. His credibility should be Zero.

Does dicrediting one scientist kill AGW theory? No, but it does chip away at the whole "settled science" claim. It will be very interesting to see what happens to world temperatures and northern hemisphere glaciers in the next couple of years, don't you think?

The point of it al lis to get the headline out of the deal. Publish the wrong numbers, get the headline, correct the numbers, ... then have the media retract the story in fine print somewhere burried on pay 12 of scetion Z.

It's the same game that was played in the "Plame Game". Bush never outed Plame .. but man . .those headlines sure made it look as if he did! So much so, that if you asked a lib here in the US who outed Plame, they'd say Bush. Armitage who??

[QUOTE=Bodean;929980]The point of it al lis to get the headline out of the deal. Publish the wrong numbers, get the headline, correct the numbers, ... then have the media retract the story in fine print somewhere burried on pay 12 of scetion Z.

It's the same game that was played in the "Plame Game". Bush never outed Plame .. but man . .those headlines sure made it look as if he did! So much so, that if you asked a lib here in the US who outed Plame, they'd say Bush. Armitage who??[/QUOTE]

Hansen does not actually manage or check the Giss data himself. If you want to give Bush a pass, you should not charge Hansen with responsibility for the slip-up in checking the data that is posted on the GISS web site before it happens. It wasn't up there for more than a day than the news was out, and they found a glitsch.

The Bush administration is de-emphasizing the climate mission of NASA, and GISS does not have primary responsibility for taking the data. It gets its data from NOAA and just processes it.
Managing and calibrating a global data base is a huge research job that is still going on.

NASA, NOAA and Hadley get their data from weather stations that they do not control or fund.
The older data is still being studied. One interesting recent item involved the post world war 2 data that has a glitsch because different nations measured ocean temperatures using different methods - engine cooling water intakes, versus wooden buckets. Extensive experimentation and records consultation and statistical analysis must be done to accurately calibrate the sea surface temperatures in this case. Recently completed work indicates that sea surface temperatures from the 1950's need to be revised upward. This has not yet been completed.

The ranting about the data is way overblown, and is just an attempt by people who oppose action on ideological grounds to deny the existence of a problem that they don't want to face.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5782

"Environmental Skeptics Are Overwhelmingly Politicized, Study SaysA review of environmental skepticism literature from the past 30 years has found that the vast majority of skeptics, often identified as independent, are directly linked to politically oriented, conservative think tanks.

The study, published in this month's issue of Environmental Politics, analyzed books written between 1972 and 2005 that deny the authenticity of environmental problems. The researchers found that more than 92 percent of the skeptical authors were in some way affiliated to conservative think tanks - non-profit research and advocacy organizations that promote core conservative ideals.

While many environmental skeptics are known to work for these think tanks, the study is the first to provide a quantitative analysis of the relationship. The popular media often regard environmental skeptics as independent experts, despite their connection to industry-funded campaigns that seek to de-legitimize sound environmental science reports, especially on climate change, says lead author Peter Jacques, an environmental politics professor at the University of Central Florida. .."

[QUOTE=christzen;926044]First,present evidence that the publications cited are right wing rags,as you maintain there is "no doubt of".Your word doesn't make it so.Present some facts.

Second,provide proof refuting the charge that Hansen's numbers used as cited were not bogus numbers.[/QUOTE]

I don't do make work projects.
The London Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Investors Business Daily is about as Right Wing as a publication can be. and so is American Thinker.
There may be some doubt about the Telegraph, but they do publish a lot about Climate Science, mostly by Christopher Booker, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main … getRule=15who is a right wing columnist.

[QUOTE=eadler;930653]I don't do make work projects.
The London Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Investors Business Daily is about as Right Wing as a publication can be. and so is American Thinker.
There may be some doubt about the Telegraph, but they do publish a lot about Climate Science, mostly by Christopher Booker, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main … getRule=15who is a right wing columnist.[/QUOTE]

eadler ...

You can't in one breath talk about the "right wingness" of some people, but then in the other breath excuse the left wingness of others.

[QUOTE=eadler;930653]I don't do make work projects.
The London Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Investors Business Daily is about as Right Wing as a publication can be. and so is American Thinker.
There may be some doubt about the Telegraph, but they do publish a lot about Climate Science, mostly by Christopher Booker, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main … getRule=15who is a right wing columnist.[/QUOTE]

eadler ...

You can't in one breath talk about the "right wingness" of some people, but then in the other breath excuse the left wingness of others.